Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Sethi vs Dimple Bajaj on 3 September, 2014
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Criminal Revision No.2728 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Revision No. 2728 of 2014
Date of decision : 03.09.2014
Sandeep Sethi
...Petitioner
Versus
Dimple Bajaj
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Amit Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
****
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The matrix of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that, initially Smt. Dimple Bajaj daughter of Dalbir Singh Bajaj -respondent (wife), has instituted a petition under Sections 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her husband-petitioner Sandeep Sethi son of Prem Parkash Sethi and others. She has also filed an application for interim maintenance. The trial Court has partly accepted her application and directed the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of `8,000/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of order, vide impugned order dated 18.04.2014.
2. Sequelly, in the wake of appeal of the respondent-wife, the appellate Court has directed the petitioner-husband to pay the pointed Kumar Naresh 2014.09.05 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2728 of 2014 -2- amount of interim maintenance from the date of application, by virtue of impugned order dated 11.07.2014.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-husband has preferred the present revision petition, to challenge the impugned orders.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the record, with his valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in this revision petition, in this context.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that the appellate Court has illegally directed the petitioner-husband to pay the amount of interim maintenance from the date of the application, lacks merit.
6. As is evident from the record that, the first appellate Court recorded the valid reasons, to make the payment of interim maintenance from the date of application, vide impugned order dated 11.07.2014, which in substance is as under: -
"In this case, a perusal of case file reveals that the instant application has been filed by the appellant/applicant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on 03.12.2012. The respondents appeared on 24.01.2013 and reply was filed on 12.04.2013. Thereafter, the case was adjourned for evidence. The application for interim maintenance was filed on 03.12.2012 but it was kept on lingering on one pretext or other. In the opinion of this Court, if a matter is delayed because there is a delay in securing the presence of respondent or in filing the reply or any other factors not arising out due to the fault attributing to the wife, grant of interim maintenance should have been effected from the date of filing of the application as it is basically meant for bare subsistence of the wife. In the impugned order, no reason has been mentioned why the maintenance has been allowed from the date of order and not from the date of application.
10. Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is silent about the date from which the same is payable, however, the provision of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act is beneficial legislation for the women, the grant of maintenance should have been given from the date of Kumar Naresh application and not from the date of order. In the instant case, since the 2014.09.05 15:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Revision No.2728 of 2014 -3- application under Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act was filed on 03.12.2012 and the impugned order was passed on 18.04.2014 and the delay in passing of the order is not caused due to the fault on the part of the appellant/applicant, so the impugned order dated 18.04.2014 is modified to the extent that the respondent will pay Rs.8,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the appellant/applicant from the date of application. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid term."
7. Meaning thereby, the first appellate Court, has appreciated the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Such impugned interim order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 401 Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner- husband, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
8. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.
September 03, 2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar)
naresh.k Judge
Kumar Naresh
2014.09.05 15:40
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh